The Candid Conservative

Dedicated Asheville liberals can rejoice now that they hold a controlling majority on the new City Council. In fact, the composition of this majestic body has been effectively limited to two political philosophies — liberal and superliberal. But those sincere souls with other than a feigned interest in diversity might pause for a moment to consider the limitations associated with any homogenized body — especially one that has access to our pockets.

More special deals for special people

Several of the new Council members are grabbing hold of the reins of leadership with passion. It appears that much of their enthusiasm will be directed toward crafting special deals for still more special interests. First mission of mercy: extending the city's generous benefits package to domestic partners.

Special interests are special in their potential to raise our awareness. They become less special when they morph into selfish interests working to milk the common interest.

Finishing off a sick system

Employee family benefits were created with two main goals: supporting healthy procreation in a family unit and securing worker loyalty. It's hard to argue with either agenda, but on a 21st-century cost/benefit basis, the system already struggles to bear the burden.

Then there's our national health-care-coverage crisis. When you take competition out and rig a free market; micromanage every piece of the puzzle; give legal predators a pass; and then load the system with underfunded government health programs, failure is predetermined.

Finally, the city's budgetary reality finds our mayor asking equally broke state and county spendthrifts to bail out our progressive Council's appetite for nice-over-necessary and the promise of something for nothing. Having whittled the city's cash reserves by half and committed to unsustainable entitlement programs and public-works projects, the city's fantasy budget is in the process of colliding with reality.

Enter the LGBT lobby

Nowhere in our culture are we having an honest dialogue on the issues of heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. Any such attempts are typically shouted down by those living in a black-or-white ditch on either side of the truth. For survival of the species, nature leans pretty convincingly in one direction. Perhaps that is why the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities are trying to lean on Asheville taxpayers for their survival.

The LGBT lobby is playing the system just as most other special-interest groups do, whether liberal or conservative. True to form for those seducing public dollars, anyone reading the three reports attached to this particular City Council agenda item would come away believing that domestic-partner benefits would end world hunger and reverse global warming. As a bonus, they would also shove Asheville's few remaining conservative voices into a closet of shame.

The MOAA, the Firefighters Association and the LGBT lobby have a lot in common

During my recent candidacy for public office, I received dozens of questionnaires soliciting endorsement of the agendas of various special-interest groups. Among the standouts were the WNC chapter of the Military Officers Association of America and the Asheville Firefighters Association — both of which, judging by their willingness to rob our national and local treasuries, respectively, had a well-developed sense of personal entitlement.

A special moment on the campaign trail came when I had the chance to say, "Sorry, Gen. So-and-So, but I am not into special deals that mortgage our children's futures." A similar opportunity arose with our local Firefighters Association. Let's just say that neither group wound up becoming a buddy.

And based on those experiences, I would respectfully suggest that the MOAA and the Firefighters Association have a lot in common with the LGBT lobby. There is little difference in robbing Peter to pay Gen. Paul, Fireman Paul or RuPaul.

Picking pockets under a pretense of virtue

We live in a culture in which personal entitlement is flaunted as a virtue — even when it means stepping on our fellow man. On the one hand, we have the MOAA and the Firefighters Association pretending that prior military service and current public service give one the right to push one's way to the front of the breadline. On the other, we have the LGBT fraternity pretending that personal uniqueness merits similar consideration. This reach for more than a fair share is more about culture vultures than culture virtues.

The truth is, there is no magic money bucket — in Washington, Raleigh or Asheville. There are only increasingly strained individual taxpayers trying to make it in a competitive world. The real American Dream is about having the liberty to bring our own unique talents to productive life — not seeing how successful we can be in stepping on the backs of the less organized.

It's tough being an out-of-the-closet conservative in a decidedly conservative-unfriendly town. As a minority with a social conscience, I hold no inner phobias toward military officers, Firefighters Association members or the LGBT community. I am, however, an admitted dealophobic.

Strip away the pretense, and the real objective of both our newly elected Council leadership and the LGBT community is simply establishing a special deal that seeks to rob one set of pockets in order to fill another. And there is nothing special, progressive or even healthy about stealing …

[Former Asheville City Council member Carl Mumpower can be reached at DrMumpower@aol.com.]

About Webmaster

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

182 thoughts on “The Candid Conservative”

Nowhere in our culture are we having an honest dialogue on the issues of heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. Any such attempts are typically shouted down by those living in a black-or-white ditch on either side of the truth.

isn’t framing the “argument” (fictitious as it is) as hetero vs. homo a black-or-white kind of thing?

Just out of curiosity, how is it one can call oneself a doctor and still infer that homosexuality is an illness?

I really surprised to know that he came out of the closet. I had no idea. And he is not supporting same partner benifits? I guess thats what you honorably do if you came out of the closet and are still conservative. Kind of twisted to take government before humanity.

“Just out of curiosity, how is it one can call oneself a doctor and still infer that homosexuality is an illness? ”

Excellent question. Perhaps it’s because Dr. Mumpower is not a medical doctor, and really has no clue. Instead, he offers his opinion on it. It’s mildly surprising the he hasn’t joined the bandwagon of claiming, as some conservative psychologists do, that ‘liberalism is a mental disorder’.

But seriously, why do people who think the government is incompetent run for office? He claims the failure of national health care as be predetermined, but I don’t see the people of Canada, France, or Germany even considering changing to our system. The only thing predetermined is Mumpower parroting the same talking points. The city council was voted into office, Asheville is liberal, the council should be too. The good doctor lost because he failed to engage voters in Asheville– this article is sour grapes. Someone give him some government cheese with that whine.

Nowhere in our culture are we having an honest dialogue on the issues of heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. Any such attempts are typically shouted down by those living in a black-or-white ditch on either side of the truth. For survival of the species, nature leans pretty convincingly in one direction. Perhaps that is why the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities are trying to lean on Asheville taxpayers for their survival.<>

BRILLIANT ARTICLE! BRILLIANT!

Mumpower just blistered the
liberals with the truth! “BLISTERRRRRRRRRED”!

LOVE IT!

Thank you Mountain Xpress for printing it!
The Asheville Citizen Times would never let an honest article like this one be in their opinion section. The editors, reporters, and staff of the Xpress are always fair and balanced.

For survival of the species, nature leans pretty convincingly in one direction. Perhaps that is why the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities are trying to lean on Asheville taxpayers for their survival.

So the fact that it takes sperm and eggs to procreate has what to do with providing health insurance to the partners of homosexuals? I depend on health insurance to pay for my and my families well being, yet I’m heterosexual.
It’s a nonsensical argument, but that’s pretty par for the course.

As I’ve said before, if city council can’t decide what to do on an issue, merely find out the Carolina Stompers’ stance and do the exact opposite. Follow that and the city countil will always make the correct and logical choice.

You’re still against grammar too I see. Glad to see somethings never change, and I’m sure Carl is proud to have you all as supporters. Also, since you seem to have free reign here, please enlighten us to some of the other things you are against.

Ah Shad come on now man. I have to have some fun with you guys from time to time. You can’t help but look at these liberal Democrats and laugh.

Here’s one I’m against – How about using tax dollars to fund your family vacation in Hawaii.

Or trying to make everbody still go green when they just found out that global warming was a hoax.

You know we kept our mouths shut when Smith and Bothwell were running for office. We knew that no mater how we explained the dangers of these two, people just did not care enough to get out to vote. We have learned that it (sometimes), takes the reality of agenda driven weird-o’s in office to get the “majority” of the voters to give a damn. This is working throught the country as some Democrats who hold office are now steping down and we get calls from average moms and dads everytime Smith and Bothwell are in the news asking, “what the hell are these two guys about?, and, “How can I stop them?”.. Bothwell and Smith will be one termers.

On a lighter note – You know I’m holding a spelling B as a fundraiser. :)

[b]Nowhere in our culture are we having an honest dialogue on the issues of heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. Any such attempts are typically shouted down by those living in a black-or-white ditch on either side of the truth. For survival of the species, nature leans pretty convincingly in one direction. Perhaps that is why the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities are trying to lean on Asheville taxpayers for their survival.

The LGBT lobby is playing the system just as most other special-interest groups do, whether liberal or conservative. True to form for those seducing public dollars, anyone reading the three reports attached to this particular City Council agenda item would come away believing that domestic-partner benefits would end world hunger and reverse global warming. As a bonus, they would also shove Asheville’s few remaining conservative voices into a closet of shame.[/b]

Mumpower seems to hold to the old school misinterpretation of Darwinism that our socio-economic model should be based on the survival of the fittest. In a continually connected world it is clear that this outdated way of thinking no longer works. New models and ideas are needed that address our inter-connectedness. If government money, our money, goes into the community that helps to alleviate social/psychological stress, then that is an investment in my security and well being. Socialism, and yes, I’m saying it “SOCIALISM”, is simply asking that OUR money be invested in a way that benefits our society by providing a solid ground base that allows individuals to creatively engage the economy rather than engage society from a stress/survival mode. The harsh and psychologically brutal socio-econoic model we have now is just a newer version stemming from thr dark ages; that of only seeing the world as a resource to benefit individual aquisation. Social health care, in almost any form, is a line that we need to cross.

Underneath his convoluted thinking Dr. Mumpower does have a point. The financial resources of government at all levels are stressed to the point of breaking. True to conservative form, he chooses to blame the problem on a minority and the general liberal and revolutionary notion that government should actually serve some purpose of “the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

At some point I would like to see a conservative state quite clearly that government indeed serves a useful purpose towards maintaining a civil society, that taxes are necessary for it to function and to address in a realistic manner how monies should be raised and spent. Instead we are subjected to maligning a minority and disrespect for veterans and public employees who risk their lives for the common good.

Perhaps Dr. Mumpower could address the arcane tax system in which the burden continues to fall disproportionately on the middle class as corporate taxes as a share of government income have fallen dramatically. Perhaps Dr. Mumpower could address the vast sums of money spent on defense. Perhaps Dr. Mumpower could address the burgeoning liability of Social Security, Medicare and the prescription drug benefits.

He can’t because the one size fits all conservative solution to all problems is to cut taxes. I am surprised he did not mention that in his essay. Instead we get it’s the gays fault for wanting to be treated with the same respect and dignity as every other employee of the city government. There is a complete failure to connect to the real problems at hand.

The collective brain power of the conservative base is then summed up quite well by Mr. Nesbitt when he chimes in to say, see he it said it, there for it is true, WOOP! WOOP! LOL! HA, HA, HA! LOL!

Yes by all means, let’s cut taxes some more. The IRS just reported that the top 400 earners in 2007 averaged only $345,000,000 in income. Yes, in one year, they only took in an average of a third of a Billion dollars. That’s almost triple their average income from 2001. Mind you, that’s not their total wealth, that’s just how much they made in one year. The majority of their income was capital gains, so they only paid 15% in taxes, thanks to the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Your reading comprehension is horrific, Chad. Way to not answer the question at all and restate a point I’d already conceded.

Mumpower states a direct correlation to the inability to conceive to the need for homosexuals to “lean” on taxpayers for health insurance benefits.
So what does the “survival of the species” have to do with the need for health insurance?

Also, it seems you’re saying those with higher risks (I’ll not bother arguing your assumption that they are higher risk in the first place) shouldn’t be covered at all, so should NO homosexuals be receiving benefits?

Also, I could play name games too, but I’m trying to have an adult conversation with you. Try to grow up a bit.

If you have been paying attention, you would know that the problems (including financial matters) surrounding overpopulation trump this issue. We should be focusing on how to NOT make babies. (I thought you were a conservative!)

Human babies are pretty much falling out of the sky. It is irrelevant, even counterproductive, to be concerned about the method of their production.

Carl is not a candid conservative. He is merely an ideologue of one. Of course he is entitled to his opinion but at the end of the day his opinions are particularly his. It seems he is a favorite punching bag in any event.

Chops says <>If you have been paying attention, you would know that the problems (including financial matters) surrounding overpopulation trump this issue. We should be focusing on how to NOT make babies.<>

Is this why the gays make fun of straight people and call us “breeders”?

Chops progressive idea to stable the economy is to make everybody gay. That way nobody can propagate. (Or kill the babies.) For God’s sake you Democrats have just got to kill babies!
Chops even gives a website to back it up.

Now listen to what I am saying –

YOU PROGRESSIVES ARE FREAKING “CRAZY”!

NUTS! SCHIZO! DEMENTED! DERANGED!

You don’t stable the economy by killing babies and forcing people to be gay.

You stable the economy by lowering taxes, being accountable of the tax payers money, stop giving out slush funds and earmarks to by votes, drill for oil, have a strong military, and STOP SUSAN FISHER AND DAVID GANTT FROM EVER USING TAX DOLLARS TO HAVE A FAMILY REUNION IN HAWAII!

And on a more calmer note –
I am very pleased that Dr. Carl Mumpower illuminated a path for you poor demented progressives. All you have to do is search your inner consciousness….. Carl knows as I know, that you have been brain washed by the hippies of the 60’s….. That your brain has somehow been—-shall I say—–“lobotomized” to the point you have all become sexual intellectuals. Mumpower’s article is merely the verisimilitude and veracity of which you long for but are not yet capable because of the pathosis of your brain.

In this case, Chad, Shad is right. (Hey, you guys should go on tour together!)

‘Verisimilitude’ is about seeming to be true, not actually being true. Not a distinction that matters much in the Stomping Ground, to be sure, but out here in “sexual intellectual” land, that difference is important.

Next time, maybe don’t use the Random Word Generator to try to sound smart.

If anybody calls someone a fag, bullies, or hurts a human being because they are feminine than other men or masculine than other women, I and the entire Carolina Stompers would come to their rescue. I am dead serious about that.

Just because they may act a certain way does not mean they are having sex with same sex partners.
If they are I don’t know it and I don’t care.

What people do in their private lives is not my business. I don’t believe in the sex police.

It is only when people bring their sexual desires into the public realm that I have a problem with.

Things start getting heated when agenda driven progressives start badgering people that want to be left alone.

But believe me – If I saw Gordon Smith himself get hit by a car and he needed mouth to mouth I would begin CPR immediately.

Besides, can you imagine the look on his face once he woke up and saw me giving him mouth to mouth? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!

It would appear mumpower is enjoying his new roll as sideline-stone-thrower since his recent rejection by the Asheville voters castrated him politically.

But fear not, faux-conservatives! He can still make wildly inaccurate accusation from the sideline, and now without any worry about his current political seat. Now is no longer the time for realistic, measured, practical political debate. No! Now is the time for hyperbole, fear, and bigotry! Hallelujah!

That’s right, its the new, improved Tea Bagger Carl! With kung-fu action grip, global warming denier-ism, and a healthy dose of homophobia (optional klan costume or american flag robe depending on what county you live in)!

I’m not really bothered by hyperbole on the internet, but with Fobes having chastised others on the blog side, I’m wondering how this sits with your idea of intellectual discourse.
Chime in Fobes or you’re a hypocrite.

Also, I’ve noticed you didn’t respond to my query earlier Chad. Are you incapable of defending an argument? Here, let me repost it for you if you’ve forgotten:

Your reading comprehension is horrific, Chad. Way to not answer the question at all and restate a point I’d already conceded.

Mumpower states a direct correlation to the inability to conceive to the need for homosexuals to “lean” on taxpayers for health insurance benefits.
So what does the “survival of the species” have to do with the need for health insurance?

Also, it seems you’re saying those with higher risks (I’ll not bother arguing your assumption that they are higher risk in the first place) shouldn’t be covered at all, so should NO homosexuals be receiving benefits?

Chad says:
“What people do in their private lives is not my business. I don’t believe in the sex police.
It is only when people bring their sexual desires into the public realm that I have a problem with.”

Chad, how can you condemn a gay person for expressing their sexuality without noting the irony in pushing your own views of sexuality?

With each keystroke, Chad gives more and more credibility to those he opposes.

“If anybody calls someone a fag, bullies, or hurts a human being because they are feminine than other men or masculine than other women, I and the entire Carolina Stompers would come to their rescue. I am dead serious about that.”

Chad, is there a form i can fill out in your cookie cutter world that exempts me from this? I would rather just die a slow, painful death.

“If anybody calls someone a fag, bullies, or hurts a human being because they are feminine than other men or masculine than other women, I and the entire Carolina Stompers would come to their rescue. I am dead serious about that.”

Chad, is there a form i can fill out in your cookie cutter world that exempts me from this? I would rather just die a slow, painful death.

Ditto. Chad, maybe you could just upload a PDF of a ‘Get Me The Hell Out From Under Chad’s Protection” form to the Stompers website. I think you’ll be swamped trying to xerox enough copies…

This is a difficult thread to read, but one does it out of a sense that one is somehow keeping tabs on the blogosphere.

Carl, Chad, your arguments about “survival” are way too lame. If you paid attention to the “reality based community” you would find that clans of hominids with substantial subsets of non-procreating adults (i.e. gay/lesbian) have a higher infant survival rate. That is, having extra, non-parenting grown-ups in a group has proven to be very beneficial, biologically, to members of our evolutionary family tree.

Of course, you’d have to be a real doctor to appreciate the nuances of real science.

babaloo: You ask if this is the kind of dialog Xpress is trying to foster. Well, yes and no.

There is some real substance above (at points), some real debate, some real humor. There’s also some silly horseshit, and unwelcome name-calling (Chad, please don’t call anyone here a butt hole, even in jest; thanks).

The discussions here get way too rollicking for some, especially on heated topics like this one. I hope that everyone will play a little nicer with folks they disagree with, and keep in mind that just because someone’s views are diametrically opposed to yours, that, in and of itself, isn’t reason enough for them to not converse here.

[b]keep in mind that just because someone’s views are diametrically opposed to yours, that, in and of itself, isn’t reason enough for them to not converse here[/b]

But thats the lie, Jon. There is a difference between opposing views based on mutually agreed facts, and ‘views’ like carl’s or chad’s that are filled with easily proven lies, misrepresentations, hyperbole, and other such nonsense.

One can not engage this sort of ‘opinion’ because it does not exist in order to seek consensus. It exists only as a juvenile attempt at affirmation or, as is the case for “Dr” mumpy, to troll the depths of the politically illiterate for reinforcements.

The notion that any media source needs to bend over backwards to appease the vocal minority of the pseudo-Right in order to avoid being labeled the ‘liberal media’ is lilly-livered to say the least. Even travelah recognizes that most of the views expressed in this thread do not have any standing with any reasonable definition of the term ‘conservative’, and it’s unfortunate that so much of the discourse from the “Right” finds itself dominated by this sort of Fox-news lowest-common-denominator sensationalism.

If you’re going to chide people for using a term like ‘ignorant’ to accurately describe someone lacking any knowledge on a subject, then why not try chiding the ignorant folks making ignorant statements, as well? I bet you would have a far more informative, productive blogs section with that sort of moderation.

Oh, right, the MX is the same paper that gave a cover story to Chad and his pretend-conservative yahoos- You have no interest in promoting reasoned dialogue, you want to encourage a kind of conversation where people claim the gays shouldn’t have rights because they cant have children, or where someones child’s facebook page is political fodder.

Its my opinion that anyone who doesnt support same sex partner benefits touches little boys. i’m not saying its fact, im just saying everyone knows its true. And i’m even willing to put it in ALL CAPS(!) if anyone dares disagree.

Hell, trav, i was agreeing with you, as i often do. at least your conservative ideals are somewhat rooted in reality. i am merely taking exception with jon and jeff’s hissy fits over properly-used words while they ignore the larger picture of total ignorance and outright lies.

Well, folks around here seem to have thin skins when it is convenient. It’s time for some of you to grow a pair (you too girls). What is a word among internet contestants? Hael, entopticon calls me a liar with every breath but I always try to remember I’m dealing with a trig level contestant so I just smile and say “there there”.

I’d like to know if there is anyone out there who will admit to actually being a patient of Carl Mumpower’s—someone who will come forward and say that I went to see Carl for (some psychological problem). With all of the e-mailed monologues that Carl sends out EVERY DAY to all of the media outlets, I don’t know where he finds the time to look up from his computer, let alone be a practicing psychologist.
Just saying……Love you, Carl! An editorial cartoonist’s wet dream…

traveliar, I actually earned the right to call you a liar, by incontrovertibly proving it… again, and again, and again, and again. Here’s a tip: if you don’t want to be called a liar, try to stop lying so much. I know it would be a stretch, because for you it is clearly a compulsive thing, but you have to start somewhere.

I have to agree with pff and bobaloo here. The hypocrisy of sanctimoniously lecturing people about using words like “ignorant,” then publishing the unconscionably offensive hate speech in the above article, is absolutely mind-boggling.

The MX doesn’t seem to understand that freedom of speech does not oblige them to publish hate speech. There is no excuse for publishing Mumpower’s despicably bigoted, gay-bashing rant on the virtues of heterosexual eugenics. The MX’s choice to publish that sort of disgusting tripe is vastly more offensive than any snarky terms that can be found in the comment sections.

It is no more your job to publish the above hate speech than it is to publish Mein Kampf or the KKK’s manifesto. And for you to publish such bigoted bile, then turn around and lecture people about civil discourse, is completely ludicrous.

There is absolutely nothing civil about publishing this sort of bigoted tripe:“Any such attempts are typically shouted down by those living in a black-or-white ditch on either side of the truth. For survival of the species, nature leans pretty convincingly in one direction. Perhaps that is why the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities are trying to lean on Asheville taxpayers for their survival.

Snarky insults on the blogosphere may be sharp-elbowed play that can bruise egos from time to time, but giving a forum for the above bigotry by publishing that sort of disgraceful bile does real harm in the world.

Yes, people should be aware that there are unconscionably disgraceful bigots like Mumpower and Chad Nebitt out there, but the forum that you regularly give them makes matters worse, because by doing so you tacitly endorse their bigotry as a reasonable part of the world of ideas, giving them undeserved attention and credibility.

It really is funny that Chad’s personal struggle with his own bisexuality is so blatantly obvious to virtually everyone, but himself.

Chad believes that people choose to be gay. He believes that because he chooses to be with a woman even though he is very attracted to men. What Chad still doesn’t understand is that by definition, hetero people and homosexual people don’t have a choice. Only bisexuals, such as Chad have a choice.

The sad, but funny thing is, Chad thinks that since it is a choice for him, it must be a choice for everyone else as well, ironically exposing his own bisexuality.

I certainly couldn’t choose to be attracted to the same sex, anymore than a gay person could choose to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Instead of incessantly obsessing over homosexuality because of the obvious guilt tied to his own same sex attractions, Chad should come to terms with it so that he can stop projecting his issues onto the rest of us.

traveliar, I hate to burst the delusional bubble that you have created for yourself there bud, but you are as guilty of hate speech and ad hominem attacks as virtually anyone on here, and then some. For example, your incessant “‘tard” aspersions, which apparently now have morphed into “trig” aspersions. Sarah Palin hates you traveliar.

I’m just curious, isn’t there only like one small sentence in the bible that talks about “men laying with men” or something? I’m not really familiar with any passage, or multiple ones, that vilify it? Can anyone clarify?

traveliar, you don’t know the difference between editorship and censorship. How completely consistently ignorant of you.

I would fight for Mumpower and Nesbitt’s right to express their bigoted opinions, but I sure as hell wouldn’t publish their shameful bile. Nevertheless, I would also fight for the MX’s right to publish hate speech as they have been doing, if some legal entity tried to take that right away from them, even though I think what they are doing is wrong.

My point was that the MX has no moral responsibility whatsoever to publish hate speech, and it is certainly of questionable ethics to do so. And I think that as offensive and blatantly bigoted as your comments often are, they are vastly less harmful here in the comments section then they would be published in the paper. If the MX published any of your rhetoric about “towelheads” and “black thugs” etc, etc, I would have a serious problem with that too.

Jon, I have to agree with those others who question why you chose to run this commentary at all. It’s not only bigoted and hateful, it’s just plain poor. Why does the media in this town fall over each other giving Carl a platform for his crazy? (Our local “progressive” radio show, Local Edge Radio has promised to give him an hour each week to expound like this & play his podcasts.) I wouldn’t mind reading a genuine conservative point of view every now & then in MtnX, but is Carl the best you can do?

Personally, I’m not disgusted by Carl. His rap is just so peculiar, it’s hard to look away. I think his political rhetoric is a unique expression of human fear and bigotry, molded into a reasonably acceptable shape & decorated by lipstick. But there’s always a sense that he’s holding something back. For some years now, I guess I have been waiting for the real Carl to come out. Unfortunately, I think two losing campaigns have bent his spirit a little, and the side that’s coming out lately isn’t pretty.

Yeah, like if he put all his political/social aspirations aside for just one minute and showed us how he REALLY feels. It’s scary to think he’s framing his speech very carefully for the media even though I know he is. He’s much, much worse.

It has to do with blatant hypocrisy. I could care less if someone calls someone else names. I merely take exception to some being singled out for (accurately) using a descriptive word like ‘stupid’ or ‘ignorant’ while simultaneously doing nothing to stifle the ignorant, stupid, and factual lacking things people say.

In addition, anyone who disagrees with me is a known sex offender and anyone who votes for Carl Mumpower is without a doubt a drug addict and feather-capped dandy.

Well, well, well. I go to Greensboro for a couple of days and the liberals turn into gang members.

Bothwell,
Glad to see Bellemy let you come out to play.
Did you know a 15 year old kid started a
“Stop Cecil Bothwell” facebook page?
I think he just started it yesterday.
I guess you’ll be in the news again.
Thank you for helping we conservitives. Keep pushing that “let the drug dealers deal and prostitutes get some” thing. You make my job a hell of a lot easier.

Carrie,
Didn’t they make a movie about you?

BS,
Lighten up Barry. Mumpowers article is very well written with excellent points. Just because you do not agree with him does’nt mean he should not have a voice. That’s the problem with liberals. You only want it your way and the hell with the majority.

The cutdowns and crude talk liberals call us like “tea baggers”, “breeders”, etc is exactly what Mumpowers talks about in his article. You guys can’t stand it when someone like me or Palin dishes it back at you. Your last resort is to come up with lies like the ones fabricated about the Palin family. This in itself is a story.

Think about it – How many local conservitives realy come onto forums like this and dish it back. Me, Yelton, ThunderPig, Mumpower? That’s about it. Conservitives realy don’t like confrontations with butt hol……I mean Sexual Intellectuals, (sorry Elliston), because they are nice, happy people. They read the Mountain X, Ashvegas, WLOS, ACT and talk about it on forums like what ThunderPig has. I happen to like the amusing and sometimes heated debates we have here at the Xpress. Beleive me, there are hundreds of conservatives that chat. They just won’t chat here.

Pardon my spelling. Tired and I want to go to bed.

Elliston – That definition thing was funny, you know it was. But I promise not to call them the BH word again.
Thank you for letting me post and thank you for a fair and ballanced paper.

Yes Chad, I am very familiar with morals, and I am well aware of the fact that you believe that resisting your attraction to men, at least in public, is a moral act. What you still don’t understand is that not everyone is bisexual like you. Unlike you, I am not attracted to both sexes, so unlike you, I have no choice in the matter. And unlike you, gays and lesbians do not have a choice in the matter either. Only bisexuals like you get to choose which gender to be with sexually.

There is nothing immoral about the fact that I am only attracted to the opposite sex, there is nothing immoral about the fact that gays and lesbians are attracted to the same sex, and there is nothing immoral about the fact that bisexuals like you, Ted Haggard, and Larry Craig, are attracted to both sexes.

What is immoral is your bigotry, and the willful ignorance of your habit of projecting the pain and guilt of your sexual confusion onto others.

Well said entopticon!! I’m equally offended by Chad’s lack of knowledge of “Airplane”! Also, I think Mumpower is the “Dr.” in that – Lesley Neilson- “and don’t call me Shirley”:) He’s as much of a doctor as mumpy is!

Er, no, you don’t actually. I, and piffy if I’m not mistaken, don’t take issue with MX publishing Mumpy’s commentary, we were taking issue with Fobes chastising one aspect of commenting while allowing others unchecked. I fully support Mump’s editorial and applaud MX for publishing it. Whether or not you think it’s bigoted, it’s a different opinion.
Had Mumpy talked about how gross buttsecks is and how much he hated fags it would be a different story, but, in as much as he’s capable, Mumpy actually attempted to make an argument.
Without reservation I support Chad, Mump and Trav’s additions to the forums and their opposing view points because I hate nothing more about the internets than a website echo chamber.
And to be honest, I think Fobes should, in fairness, bust you on constantly calling trav a liar, but whatever.

CHAD:
You evasive and cowardly little curbstomper.
For goodness sake, if you can’t logically answer my query just own up to it. What you and Mumpy said is completely nonsensical and illogical. We all know it and you do to, obviously, since you avoid answering my simple question. Coward.

By the way, don’t equate yourself with Thunderpig. For one thing, he attempts logical discourse. Also he can spell. It’s conservative genius. One “i”.

Carrie:
from Wikipedia
Leviticus 18 and 20
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
The two verses have traditionally been interpreted as blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts, but modern scholars have pointed out that the case is not so clear-cut: they come at the end of a series of laws regulating male/female incest, and can therefore be read as extending this to male/male incestuous acts.

Mumpower and Nesbit remind me of Strom Thurmond. Strom Thurman honestly believed in what his agenda was, opposing the civil rights movement. Then, after a few years, mainstream society treated different races equally, and he was left to shame and will forever be known as a racist.
Mark my words. A few years from now, Mumpower and Nesbit will be branded as leaders in the homophobic agenda, and they will look back on it in shame as they rot away in their rocking chairs.

Actually bobaloo, I was agreeing with the argument that it was hypocritical to condemn some language arbitrarily, while being perfectly fine with other language that is arguably just as much, if not more offensive. Maybe we do or don’t disagree, but don’t worry yourself too much about that, we won’t be agreeing about much.

The claim that I think it is a very bad editorial decision to publish hate speech such as Mumpower’s is my own. In fairness to Jon and Jeff, they have a difficult job and it is easy to lose perspective sometimes. In an effort to represent all voices in a community, there is no winning, and I don’t doubt that their intentions are good. That said, I still think that the MX should not be a forum for the sort of ignorant, bigoted hate speech that Mumpower disseminates here.

Hate speech like Mumpower’s and Chad’s is in absolutely no danger of being suppressed. One merely needs to turn on right wing radio, Faux News, or bobaloo’s preferred Pajama’s Media to get bucket-fulls of the stuff.

Here in Asheville there is already a local weekly committed to disseminating the hate speech and right wing extremist rhetoric of those such as Mumpower. It’s called the Asheville Tribune.

The vast majority of actual MX readers undoubtedly look to the progressive weekly for conscious, progress content (not twisted diatribes about how gay people are genetically inferior because they can’t reproduce) just like virtually any other progressive weekly, but the blogosphere is indeed a different story, and I understand perfectly well that many people here want the MX to be all things for all people, and for them that includes the unconscionably offensive hate speech of people such as Mumpower.

Ultimately it is a subjective call. You may feel that our local progressive weekly has a responsibility to be all things for all people, including right wing extremist bigots who want to use it as a vehicle for constantly disseminating crackpot theories about immigrants and homosexuals etc, but I don’t. I think it is wrong, and I think it is unnecessary.

I don’t look to the progressive weekly for right wing extremist hate speech any more than I look to a cooking magazine for pictures of muscle cars. I understand that the MX wants revenue from as many streams as possible, but in my opinion, a progressive weekly such as the MX doesn’t need to be all things for all people.

“I’m just curious, isn’t there only like one small sentence in the bible that talks about “men laying with men” or something?”

Carrie, try googling “Bible homosexuality” and you’ll find tons of Old Testament references by the gang of men who took over humankind after the god of Abraham threw out the old feminine gods of creation and nature, and silenced women, seemingly forever thereafter.

Jesus did not mention homosexuality, though, which is why many people think he was gay, and Paul and John, too, among others in the Christian fraternity.

Women, unfortunately, have continued to be silenced after Christianity further subjugated women and reinforced religion as the purview of men. (It’s interesting, though, that almost all of our Christian “holy day” celebrations have origins in the old “goddess” religions of nature and creation.)

And while you’re researching, Carrie, you’ll find it fascinating to see what else Leviticus, et.al., says about things that the god of Abraham considered abominations (certain foods, articles of clothing, hairstyles, beard cutting) and things that were permitted (owning slaves, stoning sinners to death, incest, multiple wives and concubines). They must have been having a rollicking good time.

Molton would find a wealth of content there for his cartoons, if given a local bent.

And, btw, what is a “sexual intellectual” that the men in this forum keep talking about? I’d sure hate to be missing out, through mere ignorance, on something good.

Travelah, I am not a “contestant.” I simply want to read, to learn from, and occasionally to participate in the significant, lively, and thoughtful civic dialogue purported to be the mission of MtnX without the increasingly prevalent god-awful ordure through which one must wade, shank deep, to find the good stuff, and it’s really becoming a matter of how much time it takes to find the good stuff.

For example, what is the difference between “an incredibly ignorant statement” and “a comment that shows ignorance”? Dwelling on such hair-splitting one-upmanship is awfully time-consuming and seriously detracts from the overall substance and focus, like swatting at gnats while hawks and buzzards circle overhead.

“Well, folks around here seem to have thin skins when it is convenient. It’s time for some of you to grow a pair (you too girls).”

Well, thank you, Travelah, but no. I’ll settle for my pair of brain lobes, which are not seemingly severed like those of some who post here, and thick skins are not necessarily preferable or admirable.

Are there even any “girls” left around here? Anyone else besides Davyne and Carrie and me with XX chromosomes?

I think this has become a gathering place for testosterone-laden men with guns and hatchets and such, which causes me to wonder about the general readership of MtnX, both print and online.

Does MtnX ever do polls to determine its readership? And is hostility, if not actual hate speech, what the majority of readership wants? I seriously doubt it, and I suspect the demographics of readership and advertisers fluctuate according to its prevalence. But this is a privately owned publication, after all, and the owners can appeal to whatever demographics they choose.

Betty, the readership of MX is a cross section of the community in which you live, work or play. Do you expect everybody to think as you do?
Now, if you are seriously trying to exercise some degree of intellectual discourse on MX, well, good luck. As long as you don’t mind some idiot referring to you as a liar or a juvenile gambler/faux conservative nincompoop puking mindless thought into his oversize boots, have at it.
I would like to see that. I would like to see you succeed at it. In the meantime, grow some skin. The pricks become unnoticeable.

[b]Er, no, you don’t actually. I, and piffy if I’m not mistaken, don’t take issue with MX publishing Mumpy’s commentary, we were taking issue with Fobes chastising one aspect of commenting while allowing others unchecked. I fully support Mump’s editorial and applaud MX for publishing it. Whether or not you think it’s bigoted, it’s a different opinion.[/b]

Yep, bob. We are on the same page. that is, the page that notices jon and jeff bending over backwards (AND forwards) to desperately try and not appear ‘liberal’ by giving ample space to bigoted, innacurate, hateful speech while tut-tutting those of us with the stones to call ignorance ignorance.

And, predictably, the faux-cons respond by thinking we want to censor them, when in reality, we are just pointing out that it is “we” who are being censored (or, more accurately: tut-tutted) for using accurate words like ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ to describe a philosophy that cherry-picks bible verses to justify their hatred and bigotry.

I am guessing the “we” is you and The Ent of Candler? Of course, you consider me a faux-con but that ignorance is ,well, just ignorant. Nonetheless, I don’t believe I referred any censorship comments in your direction although I might be mistaken as your pffstscticums changes every third day before the rising of the moon.

No, actually i consider you about as close to an actual conservative as we have here (well, discounting bobaloo who is just a regular ol moderate conservative). Minus your enthusiastic support for War, which puts you into the neo-con category. But if you want to lump yourself in with Chad, feel free.

But no, the “we” are the many, many folks who repeatedly point out, in this thread, and as well as others, that jeff and jon’s tut-tutting over (accurate) name-calling while giving the green light to yours and Chads outright lies.

So, to recap: Feel free to lie, but if someone calls you a liar for lying, you will be tutted.

[b]Dwelling on such hair-splitting one-upmanship is awfully time-consuming and seriously detracts from the overall substance and focus, like swatting at gnats while hawks and buzzards circle overhead.[/b]

Betty, have you not figured it out yet? That is trav’s job. He is here to distract from meaningful conversation by predictably trolling the depths for petty, off-topic asides. Entopticon is like his wet dream, since any ‘conversation’ between the two of them nearly always descends into something that basically no one wants to read.

This is what both Jon Elliston and Jeff Fobes seem entirely unaware of. I think they just discovered the innnernets last month.

Travelah wrote: “Betty, the readership of MX is a cross section of the community in which you live, work or play.”

Really? Where did you find those demographics? I’d surely like to see the numbers and patterns.

And do you think there is there a difference between the readership of the print version and participants in the online version as some posters herein have stated? And do the advertisers vary as well for the two offerings?

I’m a long-time reader and loyal advocate of the print version, but only recently have I become interested in the online discussions–and I am admittedly having a bit of difficulty reconciling the two.

I’m popping in here to note that you, David Cohen, Ken Hanke, Barry Summers, Chad Nesbitt and Jon Elliston are the only commenters here whose positions I much respect.

I believe that folks who prefer to hide behind cutesie anonymous identities are mere dilettantes, expounding their idiocies at no personal cost. If you are unwilling to place your name, your reputation, perhaps your job behind your opinion, you aren’t much worth my attention.

Yes, I answer the anonymous idiots from time to time, but only when such a response seems to advance the public debate. But I would never credit their opinions as intrinsic to my consideration of public policy. They are merely engaging in self-stimulation in public, permissible on the Web in a way that would be decried in Pritchard Park.

Cecil,
The notion that Chad Nesbitt is somebody whose positions you respect more than others speaks more to your #$#@#$# sensibilities than anything else you could have stated.
But don’t you worry. I’ll answer your identified idiotic comments from time to time but only when it suits my interest. I would never credit your opinion as anything other than self serving.

pffstsctick, perhaps you would share one of the lies to refresh the conversation …. no, I didn’t think so.

Betty,
I suspect there is some considerable difference between the print readership and the online community. I know that several friends and associates of mine read the print version but few of them read online.

Christopher C,
Your C may be of some note over the entire WWW, but here you are hiding behind some kind of bizarre shield. Are you an Asheville citizen? Cool, join the conversation. Are you some lurker from Timbuktu? Great! But don’t expect real citizens of a real city to credit your input.

Cecil, there are times when you make some very strong arguments, but your diatribe about the use of monikers on the internet really is a load of crap, and it shows a remarkably lacking ignorance of the medium.

In fact, a level of anonymity has been a profoundly important facet in the development of the medium. It allows for ideas to stand on the basis of their own merit alone. It allows a gay teenager in Hickory to speak his mind without having his brains bashed in with a baseball bat. It allows a woman with an abusive husband to reach out for advice and support without endangering or shaming herself. In many cases it allows for freedom from preconceived prejudices about the gender, age and race of someone and the effect it has on their perspective. Monikers are not offensive; it is your condemnation of monikers that is offensive.

Using a sockpuppet account to deceive people as Cullen constantly does is indeed of questionable ethics, but your self-righteous blather about people using names instead of monikers is seriously misguided. That said, many people here know my name and who I am. As traveliar mentioned above, and often does, he even knows where I live, which he is very proud of.

That is rather snotty of you Cecil. I would expect better from you. Lurkers do not leave comments as a general rule of thumb. Will you now be checking the real city citizenship status of folks before you accord their thoughts any respect? I am a citizen of neighboring Haywood County, not that what goes on in Asheville has any impact what so ever on the surrounding region, eh.

And I guess since I do not live within the confines of a defined city limits at the moment, my life’s experience of having watched the same problems in a similar community over twenty years of rapid growth are of no merit in your view. Your loss.

Wow, cecil. Thats foolish. I tend to pay more attention to the information people present, not the silly little names they choose to go by. I’ve never met Cecil Bothwell, or Christopher C, or Chad NEsbitt. I hardly think that changes the way i read the things they choose to write.

Personally, I’m still waiting for MtnX to come out with their new comments policy. All the arguments about the value of anonymous commenting, there’s some truth to those. However, times change, the nature of community debate evolves. It should be clear by now, at least on this forum, that the trolls have ruined it for genuine debate.

Even those of you who I often agree with – more & more I don’t even read the anonymous posts. Sorry.

I’m gonna offer my personal opinion here, for a moment, without thinking too hard about how it should or shouldn’t affect the professional one. As someone who tries to make this both a freewheeling forum and a locus of real discussion, what Barry just said, and Cecil before him on this topic, strikes a very deep chord with me.

I quess Christopher C. In North Carolina is too much of an obscure and majorly impenetrable bizarre shield for some folks here. Perhaps if I added a few more letters to the C. my whole internet persona would magically change. Who knows I could really turn out to be someone as awesome as the Bugg.

Wow, Cecil, as one of the anonymous idiots who has up to this point agreed with you, allow me to justify my anonymity, for what it’s worth.
As an licensed professional and employee of a pretty powerful organization in the area, I don’t have the luxury of making untethered public statements outside of a forum such as this one. If you wish to have a private conversation with one of your voters sans the “cutesie names”, my profile has an email option, and you and any other forum user has the option to use it. But if I choose to allow myself a voice on this forum separate from my profession, career, and the politics that follow, just as a voter would do in a voting booth, then why would a public servant who attained his position by just such a process have a problem with that?

I quess Christopher C. In North Carolina is too much of an obscure and majorly impenetrable bizarre shield for some folks here.

Coming at this from another direction, Christopher – I made an assumption about who you were based on your partial name. Have you ever heard of ‘Brother Christopher’ Chiaromonte? If not, do a quick google. I assumed at first that you were him. I don’t think you necessarily want to be confused with him. Cecil, as a Council member, and all of us who follow City Council, already get an earful from him on a regular basis.

I’m curious. What is your reluctance to post under your full name? I haven’t seen you here before – maybe you haven’t seen the slow-motion trainwreck this forum has become under the sockpuppets…

travelah,
I disagree with Chad on pretty much everything he and I have had occasion to discuss, but at least he has the courage to speak for himself.

Cecil, you poor cad … I have used my name, A.M. Mallett, several times here and have conversed with interested people via email on many occasions using my name. I have also used this screen name, travelah, in both character and numeric equivalents longer than you have been able to use Al Gore’s invention. I have kept it for sentimental reasons and will continue to do so. What a pompous arrogant ass you make of yourself with this contrived matter.

Jon, crap or get off the pot. You either want actual names or you don’t. This is the internet where life began as 8 bytes and it was good until the invasion of chatrooms and adolescents.

My main reluctance to use my full name on the internet is from fear of marketing, spam, advertising and the full glut of abuse that comes from capitalism’s view of me as a target. I currently live in a house where the phone rings four and five times a day from every charity you can imagine and the entire gamut of rebublican politicians, think tanks, PACs and committees because these kind people who made a few donations had all their information sold to the next group looking for an easy mark. I would like to avoid that.

I have been around the local Asheville interwebs for over two years with the same name the entire time. You may not have noticed me because I don’t comment obsessively nor do I make a spectacle of myself that often.

Yes I have seen what you call the slow motion train wreck for those same two plus years and find nothing the least bit unique to Asheville about it. More civil forums tend to have a very specific topic focus, which is not possible with a newspaper, and ruthless moderators.

As others have been pointing out for quite some time, in the quest to be “fair and balanced” there are some trade offs. It may be time for the Xpress to make some choices if they want things to be different.

Christopher C NC, I’ve seen you post around here for some time now and I appreciate your input even if I don’t often agree with it. I think you should stay anonymous if you feel that is in your best interest on the internet.

Tell you what, the only people I respect in threads like these are the folks who make intelligent, witty, or valid points. Names(or the lack thereof) aren’t the problem; it’s the poorly defined and/or executed moderation policy that lets sock puppets run rampant and resident trolls puke all over the place. I try to keep my full name hidden on the Web as a layer of security. If you think that’s a bullshit reason, fine–but know that we probably live completely different lives with different priorities. And if that choice alone makes my input inferior or less worthy of respect to someone, I’d have to question their ability to empathize and think critically.

Cecil, you poor cad … I have used my name, A.M. Mallett, several times here

And how many people know that? You act like because one or two or five people know who you are, anybody who doesn’t is some kind of fool? It’s like Pfff… whatever he’s calling himself today. If you haven’t hung out here continually for months, you don’t know it’s the same person – he changes his name constantly, and mildly rebukes anyone who hasn’t picked up on it. It’s like a game meant to discourage or complicate simple conversation. I don’t get it.

I have also used this screen name, travelah, in both character and numeric equivalents longer than you have been able to use Al Gore’s invention.

And that means…what? I was investigated by the NSA for being a hacker when Gerald Ford was still President. Doesn’t make me wise, well known, notorious, expert, or exempt from criticism 35 years later. Just means I’m old.

Maybe if you drop the ‘travelah’ mask, people will take you more seriously posting under ‘A.M. Mallet.’

Really? so instead of basing an opinion based on the content of his posts (which couldnt be mistaken to something “Brother Christopher” might say or write by a retarded monkey), you just made an assumption about him based on him having a similar name to someone else.

are you the guy who enforces the no-fly list, too?

If getting rid of anonymous posts like mine gets the blogs cleaned up, then i’m all for it. I wont post any more, but i will still read. Unfortunately, the problem is ignorance, not anonymity. Take a few moments to edit out the stupid and your problem is solved.

[b]It’s like Pfff… whatever he’s calling himself today. If you haven’t hung out here continually for months, you don’t know it’s the same person – he changes his name constantly, and mildly rebukes anyone who hasn’t picked up on it. It’s like a game meant to discourage or complicate simple conversation. I don’t get it.[/b]

Actually, the only person who has ever taken exception with my ever-floating name is our resident troll, William P Miller, et al. but way to totally misrepresent the issue. Who are these people I am causing such consternation to again? Who have i “rebuked” other than the one previously named troll?

Again, what does someone’s ‘name’ matter when the issue is the validity of the information provided?

I welcome the mx’s policy of requiring members to post with their ‘real’ name. It will most assuredly make these blogs so incredibly helpful and informative, with all the Chad Nesbitts and Carl Mumpowers of the world with their enlightening, truthful, insightful posts.

As I said, ‘mildly’. A few months ago, when I questioned who you were, you suggested that I needed to click on your name to see your posting history, & find out who you were or something like that. Like people skimming through a blog are going to take the time.

What you do, changing your name continually – maybe you don’t see it this way, but you might consider that others might take it as being not completely honest or respectful of others. And what might concern you more – I find I don’t want to read your posts, because even after I figured out that you were this same person, the whole thing was just annoying, and it colored my impression of you, like you’re a child who’s constantly in “I’m a pirate – no, I’m a cowboy – wait, no! I’m a spaceman!” mode… It’s exhausting. I for one just need to tune all that out & talk about issues with other human beings, not be distracted by all these guessing games.

“Christopher C NC, I’ve seen you post around here for some time now and I appreciate your input even if I don’t often agree with it.”

Why thank you travelah and I never agree with your either, except maybe now. I do have to give you some gold stars for being much more succinct then Entopicon your polar opposite.

And thank you too Pffster for thinking I write better than a retarded monkey. (You do know the R word is taboo now.)

And Barry if you click on anyones name next to their comment it will take you to their profile page at the Xpress. It may or may not contain more information to aid in your assumptions, but it will give you an overview of their comment history here at Xpress.

My main reluctance to use my full name on the internet is from fear of marketing, spam, advertising and the full glut of abuse that comes from capitalism’s view of me as a target. I currently live in a house where the phone rings four and five times a day from every charity you can imagine and the entire gamut of rebublican politicians, think tanks, PACs and committees because these kind people who made a few donations had all their information sold to the next group looking for an easy mark. I would like to avoid that

While I don’t much care whether you use your real name or not, I don’t see any connection between using it and your fears of phone solicitation. If your phone no. is listed, you’re going to be solicited regardless. If it’s not, no one is going to divine it from your name on here. As far as spam is concerned, I get 20-30 e-mails a day headed things like “Dear Beloved in Christ” offering me millions of dollars from places like Botswana and another 10 or so from banks with whom I have no accounts who have noticed “suspicious activities” on my non-existent accounts. But my e-mail address has nothing to do with my name and is unrelated to any of this.

As for real names solving anything — I don’t see it. I don’t understand the need for screen names and anonymity, but I have very little trouble determining who to listen to and who to discount. The fact that Chad posts — and posts and posts — under his real name certainly doesn’t mean I take what he says as having any actual merit. There was a recently banned fellow on the Forums. I had figured out who he really was based on a few things he said and remarks made by others, but that knowledge was kind of pointless and his annoyance quotient was painfully obvious without it. Would knowing the identity of Mystery Logger or Asheville Dweller change anything? I doubt it. Granted, they may think themselves sufficiently important that the revelation would be somehow dangerous for them, but that’s probably megalomania. I doubt anyone cares that much.

I think the crux for me is the value in grounding these conversations in the community of Asheville. If you know that you might run into someone at Downtown After 5, or in church, or in City Council, and they will recognize you & remember the things you said online, you are forced to ground your comments in that reality, and not in the air, where let’s face it, they won’t take root.

I take comments from people I disagree with, like Nathan Ramsey, or Don Yelton, or even Chad Nesbitt way more seriously than a faceless avatar like travelah. People who I tend to agree with, like Pfff…, like I said, I tend to tune them out in favor of people I know that I can talk to in person if I run into them in the street.

I think we should resist the slide towards a world where nobody is held accountable for their opinions or words or actions, where people are more likely to flip off or even shoot at drivers in other cars, because they don’t see them as people, they see abstract threats. If you saw these same people out of their cars, you wouldn’t curse them or shoot at them.

Barry we already live in a world where nobody is held accountable for their words or actions. Look at the essay that started the whole debate. Look at a government that has turned a blind eye to the crimes of torture, the crimes of fraud and theft on wall street and in finance. Look at a media that takes Sarah Palin as a person of merit and not a pathological liar.

Perhaps this slide of no accountability is just trickling down from those in power to the rest of us.

Well, I guess I can’t please everyone. I thought your post was somewhat superfluous as well. Your argument that monikers lead to shootings was certainly a bit much.

There are people on this list that actually brag about their support for registered white supremacist hate groups such as the League of the South. I don’t really want anything to do with them in the real world. I think the whole argument against monikers is completely asinine, but the MX can certainly do whatever they want. They clearly don’t mind disseminating hate speech, as evidenced by the above Mumpower article, but if some twisted logic makes that less offensive to their sensibilities than snarky blog comments by people with anonymous monikers, so be it.

Really, this long string of passionate responses to conservative poser/provocateurs like Carl Mumpower & Chad Nesbit, as humorous as some of it may be, is part of the problem.

It is obvious that these two are baiting idiot liberals into an inane “conversation” in order to shore up a weak base and convince some ignorant people that they are still somehow relevant.

Going after them here is like going to Klan rally and calling all the hooded men “racists.” It is simply bad strategy. You are simply feeding the fire, when you should be cooling your jets. (Keep it up and Carl might even get re-elected.)

I mean the idea that Carl’s screed has any journalistic merit is pretty ludicrous to begin with, but then again, what do you expect from an Ad Weekly masquerading as a local paper that publishes essays like the one Edgy Mama proffered this week on the “pros” of marriage. Anyone who found Carl offensive here should go check out Anne Fitten Glenn’s column on what marriage is all about. She and Carl should get together and do couples therapy. Between his genius advice, as proffered in his book, “A Guys Guide To Marriage,” and Anne Fitten Glenn’s sage wisdom on why you should even bother to tie the knot in the first place – to save money on taxes and legitimize offspring (how “edgy” is that?) – I bet they could get many flailing marriages out of their torpid jams.

Oh, the humanity!

“A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier” – H. L. Mencken

Given that I occasionally get upward of 500 e-mails per day and frequently exceed 100, the whole question of making oneself accessible by offering a real identity doesn’t carry much water with me. Deal with it. It is 2010. On the flip side, my phone number is unlisted (in the phone book) but widely published via the City government, the Board of Elections and elsewhere and I get vanishingly few phone solicitations. Less than one per month.

I have often said I fully understand the reason to protect the identity of whistleblowers, even as I protected the identity of some sources when I was a reporter. But protecting the identity of blowhards is a different matter.

I have had a couple of discussions with Gordon over the past year about the feasibility of using the Web for Council meeting feedback in real time, to offer another possibility. And, IMHO Christopher C, in that case it would make good sense to me to limit comment to city residents, or perhaps Buncombe (due to potential annexation) and certainly to registration with real identity. In Council public comment identity is a matter of law.

As per Ken’s note that he can tell who to listen to—sure. But that means wading through more than half of the comments on this thread, and dealing with all the deviation from topic thus introduced (including this that I’m writing now, of course-which I only do because I believe that the issue of standing behind one’s opinions is vital. I note that the signers of the Declaration of Independence used their real names, while the pamphleteers who preceded them often did not. There was real risk involved for those who might hang alone. The sniping on blogs isn’t going to get anyone hung, just laughed at.)

Self wrote: ”Mumpower and Nesbit remind me of Strom Thurmond. Strom Thurmond honestly believed in what his agenda was, opposing the civil rights movement. Then, after a few years, mainstream society treated different races equally, and he was left to shame and will forever be known as a racist. Mark my words. A few years from now, Mumpower and Nesbit will be branded as leaders in the homophobic agenda, and they will look back on it in shame as they rot away in their rocking chairs.

Interesting observation, Self. Thurmond as a young man sired a child (Essie Mae Washington) by the family’s black housekeeper, and he supported her financially for decades even while he was carrying out his racist agenda in South Carolina and the U. S. Senate. She often visited him in Washington, and he treated her as his daughter—just not in public. After he died, she revealed their story, and the extended Thurmond family acknowledged her publicly. So sad that he chose to live such a lie about her and about himself for so long—80 years of secrecy.

Google facebook fired, read some results, then tell me that anonymity is unnecessary. Anonymity allows the conversations on this forum to be a little more candid for some people. I’m sorry if you have to sort through some crap, but sometimes that’s what it takes to have a conversation. Occasionally children interrupt with farts and giggles.

I believe that folks who prefer to hide behind cutesie anonymous identities are mere dilettantes, expounding their idiocies at no personal cost. If you are unwilling to place your name, your reputation, perhaps your job behind your opinion, you aren’t much worth my attention.

Yes, I answer the anonymous idiots from time to time, but only when such a response seems to advance the public debate. But I would never credit their opinions as intrinsic to my consideration of public policy. They are merely engaging in self-stimulation in public, permissible on the Web in a way that would be decried in Pritchard Park.

“I think the crux for me is the value in grounding these conversations in the community of Asheville.”

and concluded with this:

“I think we should resist the slide towards a world where nobody is held accountable for their opinions or words or actions, where people are more likely to flip off or even shoot at drivers in other cars, because they don’t see them as people, they see abstract threats. If you saw these same people out of their cars, you wouldn’t curse them or shoot at them.”

So your premise was that we need to stop using anonymous monikers because of a lack of accountability and your conclusion was that a lack of accountability leads to shooting people.

Speaking of a lack of accountability, try owning up to your own words next time, instead of claiming that you never said something that is right here in black and white for all to read.

jimmytwotimes is absolutely right. It is astonishing to me that there is even an argument about the value of anonymous monikers on the web. The ignorance of some of these arguments, particularly Cecil’s, is mind-boggling. It is actually strange to see people take such strong positions on an issue that they clearly know virtually nothing about.

Pick up a book sometime. There is no shortage of intelligent, in-depth literature on this subject. Some of the world’s best new media analysts have already been writing about this for decades.

The examples that I gave above aren’t obscure exceptions. Many gay people, young and old, would literally have their heads kicked in if not for anonymous monikers that allow for them to express their opinions in safety. And for many of those people, particularly those that live in conservative rural areas, the ability to express and connect to others, with the use of anonymous monikers on the internet, is the only thing in the world that keeps them from feeling completely, suicidally alone.

The example I gave of a woman in an abusive relationship that can bring up the issue safely without fear of being exposed is just as apt.

And as jimmytwotimes mentioned, there are certainly a great many people whose jobs could be in great jeopardy if it wasn’t for anonymous monikers. When my identity became known here, somebody literally went to my wife’s boss to complain about me, which caused quite a bit of grief for us all.

Cecil’s sanctimonious drivel about how people are cowards if they don’t want to lose their jobs in order to express their opinions on the internet was downright frightening. I lost a great deal of respect for him. People have mortgages to pay and children to feed, and if Cecil is actually that cavalier about other people’s jobs, that makes me seriously question his politics.

There are infinite ways that anonymous monikers protect people who want to express their political, religious, academic, and personal opinions safely. What is happening in China is but one telling example of that. The fact that there are so many people here that are completely ignorant of that is actually a bit shocking.

I have to join those who defend posting anonymity. There are many, many valid reasons (some already provided) why some posters may choose to remain anonymous. Sure, this may breed some oafish (or worse) commentary, but anonymity per se should not relegate the content to the dung heap. If you read an good book by someone using a pseudonym, would it suddenly be of less import once you learned of it?

I use a screen name due to the exact reason as jimmytwotimes described. Personal views, especially on a topic as volatile as politics, would be quickly impossible with use of the name.

By the way, just how is it that there can be confidence that those who post with names aren’t just making those names up? I’m not saying that is the case necesarrily, but how would the reader know? I’m happy to come up with a real-sounding name if it placates the critics.

For what it’s worth, I don’t know what Jon & Jeff will eventually decide to do, but earlier discussions included a ‘tiered’ set-up, where one thread would be for ‘named’ commenters, and one for anonymous. If you have your heart set on staying anonymous, you could still do that.

The “special rights” argument that some like Mumpower make is garbage. The fact is that government provides special rights to heterosexual couples who are married…extra pay in the form of benefits…because they might…MIGHT…produce a child? Is THAT the reason? Or is it to encourage marriage so that you get the extra pay and benefits? Or is this some kind of a govt. payoff to those who do the right Christian thing and marry.

Those in same sex marriages…recognized by their religious faith and community…or now by law in the 5 states in America where it is legal should get the same “special” marital rights that heterosexual couples do.

THAT is not special rights. Its only deemed “special” by Mumpower because he wants so badly to hold onto the past, advance a religious agenda that others do not share, or worse a line of a soon to be dead way of thinking. That’s right…like opposition to inter-racial marriage, this opinion is dying off (literally) each day.

Barry, you are full of it. In your own example, A is anonimity, which leads to B, a lack of accountability, which according to your own post, leads to C, shootings. There is no logical faux pas in my post, but there certainly is in yours. So to answer your question… using your own name sure as hell didn’t keep you from making a poorly reasoned, asinine logical faux pas.

Ent, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before, but you’re clearly being intellectually dishonest.

“A leads to B leads to C”? There is no ‘C’ in the analogy I presented. You’re making this up. I said that anonymity contributes to bad behavior in different scenarios. I never said that because you choose to post on a website under a pseudonym, that means you will be involved in gunplay. That’s absurd. Why are you lying about a simple analogy? Or are you genuinely that stupid?

Now this is rich….. In response to my post, which Barry just read, he said, “Now I don’t feel so bad about not reading your posts anymore.”

What makes the ridiculous hypocrisy of that even more hilarious, is that in the same post, he accused me of being intellectually dishonest.

Barry, whatever, in a post about anonymous monikers, you claimed that anonymity leads to shootings, and I made fun of you for that. Parse it however you want, but get over yourself. I sure as hell was not lying. I was making fun of your asinine argument.

Am I genuinely that stupid? Well now, you are indeed brave for using your own name here, but I seriously doubt that you would be brave enough to say that to my face. You are pretty safe behind your keyboard, but what do you think would happen to you if you talked that kind of crap to someone who is probably a lot bigger and a lot meaner than you in public? Chances are, you would get your face beaten to a pulp. Like you said, we might just bump into each other around town.

Ent, you said that my argument was “monikers lead to shootings”. Your exact words, cut & pasted. Now, you are now trying to walk it back by saying instead that what you said was, “anonymity leads to shootings”, which is halfway back to what I actually said. I accept your tacit retraction.

And your threats of violence? I take that into account in my assessment of who you are.

Wow, what was this thread about again? Way to go Cecil. You hijacked this thread by stating a fundemantalist view on posting anonymously and quite possibly alienated yourself from people who are in your support base. Why? You know the lay of the land here. Was there any other reason for stating this other than telling someone that their view is of no value? As if you, or anybody else, can’t make that judgement from the content itself? Senseless and unwise.

I’m not walking anything back there Barry. You were critizing the anonymity of monikers, and concluded your post by talking about how anonymity leads to things like shootings.

No threat of violence. My point was that I think you are a coward, who wouldn’t dare say that to my face. You are the one who streesed the importance of the fact that when you use your real name online, the people that you talk to “will recognize you & remember the things you said online.”

My point was that if you call a bigger, meaner person stupid, despite the fact that you are a bit of a dim bulb yourself, and you attach your real name to it, there is a very good chance that that person my walk up to you out of the blue someday and beat your face in for the insult. When you call someone stupid, using your own name, you better be willing to cash that check.

Wow, you really are a bit slow. Exactly what check is it that you think that I am not willing to cash? Where is the threat of violence? You are the one that said that we might bump into each other around town. My point was the same one that I have made repeatedly throughout this thread. If you use your whole name, you may be putting yourself in danger, especially if you are imbecilic enough to call people who for all you know may be a lot bigger and meaner, “stupid.” Again, it is you who doesn’t seem to want to put your money where your mouth is, but if we bump into each other around town, you just might get your chance.

Wow, you really are a bit slow. Exactly what check is it that you think that I am not willing to cash? Where is the threat of violence? You are the one that said that we might bump into each other around town. My point was the same one that I have made repeatedly throughout this thread. If you use your whole name, you may be putting yourself in danger, especially if you are imbecilic enough to call people who for all you know may be a lot bigger and meaner, “stupid.” Again, it is you who doesn’t seem to want to put your money where your mouth is, but if we bump into each other around town, you just might get your chance.

You wrote: Chances are, you would get your face beaten to a pulp. Like you said, we might just bump into each other around town.

Whatever you meant by that, it certainly can come off as a veiled threat of violence, which is *most* unwelcome here. Please desist from that kind of suggestion, or we’ll need to moderate you or close your account.

And why don’t all of you that are getting so furious please take a deep breath before you post here again.

Again, where is the threat of violence? A threat of violence would be if I said, “Barry, I am going to hunt you down and beat you to a bloody pulp.” Agreeing with you that we may indeed bump into each other around town, as you said, and that if so, you just might get a chance to put your money where your mouth is is not a threat of violence. Again, I was merely pointing out that if you go calling people stupid, you better be willing to suffer the consequences of that. A lot of people might not be as nice of a guy as I am. I made it perfectly clear that there was no threat of violence, and my point was that you may not be so lucky with the next guy that you idiotically chosoe to call stupid, despite the fact that you are clearly not the sharpest crayon in the box. If you go calling someone stupid and they punch you in the face for it, there is a very good chance that the most that they will get is a slap on the wrist for it. Again, you shouldn’t cash checks that you can’t deliver on.

By the way, it’s no secret here that I am pretty severely physically handicapped, which makes your contention especially funny to me, but handicapped or not, I am no coward. I would not recommend calling anyone stupid unless you are willing to suffer the consequences for your insult.

DP benefits are not some new idea. It’s not like Asheville is the first city in the world to consider this.

Do any of the opponents realize that gay marriage aside, majorities support making this country more equitable for us? DPB’s are in place in the Triad,Triangle,and Mecklenburg just passed them. Not to mention nationwide. They are not illegal in NC and work just fine.

Mumpower and those who believe like him are pathetic bigots who can’t deal with progress.

Jon, this thread was about the very real dangers of using your actual name online, especially if you are going to call people “stupid.” Not sure why as usual, I am reprimanded, and not Barry, when I was responding to someone who called me stupid. I made an effort to clarify that there was indeed no threat, and I will repeat it again, there is no threat. My point to Barry was that he may not be so lucky with the next guy, because AVL is a pretty small town. I seriously doubt he will want to call me stupid to my face if I see him around town. His remarks were completely uncalled for.

FYI, I just got off the phone with the cops (don’t freak, not pressing any charges or naming any names.) After hearing Entops comments verbatim, they didn’t hesitate to say they would issue an arrest warrant, despite his subsequent protests that it was all just hypothetical.

Entop – I’m sorry I suggested you were stupid. But please recognize you broke the law just now, and the next guy might not hesitate to fill out a complaint & have you arrested.

Actually Barry, I don’t think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that that would stand up in court, but do whatever the heck you want to do. Hell, maybe you should. Might make legal precedent. You could shake up the blogosphere. There was no veil, there was no threat, and I even clarified that point, but whatever.

By now it should be obvious that there is no substantial difference in content or tone between those using real names and those using cutesy bizarre shields as monikers. You are dealing with personality driven interaction no matter what the participants call themselves.

While Cecil has a legitimate point about public comments on council matters being restricted to Asheville or Buncombe County citizens using their real names, this is not that place and never will or should be despite his apparent wish to steer it in that direction. He may wish to only listen to the immediate locals, but I am quite sure that his opinions and world views are not derived solely from the insular confines of Asheville. Even in regards to DPBs he will be taking input from other communities in NC and the rest of the country who have enacted these benefits. So his locals only stance rings a little hollow particularly if he chooses to participate in this forum.

The bottom line is the only way you will get to know who all these characters are and who you might wish to ignore is by spending time participating. The name used is irrelevant.

See. Even Barry using his real name could not stop himself from getting sucked into the furies of the interwebs.